Timeless twoofs

Jerry Coyne points out this here Clergy Letter Project. It’s a thing where a bunch of clergy sign a letter saying science and religion can be compatible. Very useful in its way, no doubt, but it says some dubious things on the way there.

Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation.

Oh really? What “timeless truths” does the beloved story about Noah and the ark convey? That there is a god watching human antics as if we were a bad movie? That we are so bad and disgusting that this god may decide to delete us all and start over, deleting all the other animals at the same time? And that then god will decide there is one righteous fella and decide to preserve him and his kids and a pair of each animal, and start over from them? What timeless truths does all that convey? That humans are horrible? That god is incompetent? That humans are horrible except for one righteous guy? Are those timeless truths? Are they truths at all? And is that story such a great way to convey them? Better than the Odyssey for instance? And as for Adam and Eve – we know what that teaches: that women are sly stupid disobedient bitches who ruin everything and drag men down with them.

And how can the bible or any other book convey any kind of truths about “the proper relationship between Creator and creation” when there is no “Creator” to have a proper relationship with? In other words that whole idea just begs the very question that is at issue, the compatibility of science and religion. The reason the two are not compatible is that science doesn’t assume the existence of a magical evidence-free “Creator” while religion does, so if you try to explain that the two are compatible by burbling about “timeless truths” about “the proper relationship between Creator and creation” then you’re arguing in a circle.

Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

By starting from the assumption that there is a “Creator” and a “proper relationship” we should be having with it, which is a pair of claims about the real world that we live in, so it’s not as separate from science as the project wants to claim. Typical.

15 Responses to “Timeless twoofs”

It is even funnier than I first realised, that the term “timeless truths” is being used for some of the more absurd biblical stories, for they are almost the literal diametric opposite of that. Maybe not lies, but the fairy tales and legends of a very specific time and place (and we may never quite understand how they were regarded then), that are causing nothing but trouble by being taken as literal and timeless thousands of years later.

It’s the standard view of the sophisticated Christian: the Bible isn’t literally true; it’s symbolically, poetically true. How anyone can read the bloody thing and believe this, I’ve got no idea. What could be the poetic, symbolic truth of Numbers 31: 17-18 ? (That’s the one that says kill everyone except the virgin girls – them you can rape.)

Perhaps it has some beautiful meaning to modern theologians, but God could hardly blame those who ran the rape factories in Bosnia because they took a different reading of the text.

There are some good stories, and lashings of great poetry (at least in the King James, and I am told, in the Hebrew as well, but I take that by report), and there may even be a few timeless truths – in Ecclesiastes for one – but Noah is one hell of a bad example of timeless truths conveyed by a story, and so is Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve is all “Don’t touch this one thing because I said so period shut up.” The hell with that for a timeless truth.

Bah. The Clergy Letter Project is just a reminder of who needs whom around here. God holds dominion over the universe, but we enlightened Christians understand that He never shows it. It depends on what you mean by religion indeed.

But I welcome it. In conceding all of nature to science, Zimmerman and his peers really are leaving themselves with nothing but belief in belief. While that may sustain them, their children aren’t going to be able to make any sense out of it. You wonder if they know this.

Accomodationism is so disingenuous: it’s also grossly insulting. They’re not dancing around in the areas of taste or ethics, though they pretend they are when challenged. Both ‘religious truth’ and ‘scientific truth’ are supposed to convey factual information. God is a real being, a mind without body. There is a purpose and plan to the universe. Magic is real. And so forth. The distinction is that science arrives at its conclusions using methods and evidence which are available to everybody, and religion just grandly presents its conclusions to the right kind of people.

Who are the right kind of people? The ones who choose to believe the religious conclusions. They are distinguished from non-believers by character traits — being wiser, more humble, or more sensitive. They know truth when they hear it. They have transformed hearts. Everyone else, apparently, have the ordinary, mundane, insufficient sort of hearts which merit damnation — or, at the least, leave their sensitivity-crippled hosts behind on the lower spiritual levels, where they can stew in their skepticism and lack of love.

Subjectivity is not necessarily warmer and friendlier than objectivity. It’s exclusive, not inclusive. Science leave the character of the believer out of the equation, and just concentrates on the factual reasons to believe. Doesn’t matter what kind of person y0u are — an experiment will turn out the same for you, as for anyone who follows the steps just as carefully. This is supposed to be nowhere near as noble and comforting as the other method, which considers the person as primary. Trouble is, the alternative sort of truth is only going to be seen as meaningful — and valid — if you’re an insider person. To the outsiders, it’s a major insult. They’re not the right kind of people.

I am not comforted by accomodationism. The religious agree to stay the heck out of science, but then claim that their “facts” are known by a heart which I lack. I’d rather just be guilty of errors in reasoning, thank you very much.

Subjectivity is not necessarily warmer and friendlier than objectivity. It’s exclusive, not inclusive. Science leave[s] the character of the believer out of the equation, and just concentrates on the factual reasons to believe.

Well said, as is the rest of the post. This is what makes religion poisonous. It segregates the human community into gangs of submissive but exclusive, passive-aggressive people who have surrendered their all in order to belong. To suggest that this is consistent with science is just silly. Science may, to a certain extent, be an exclusive club, but if you’re willing to undergo the mental disciplines involved, you too can not only understand; you may even make creative contributions. This is not the way religion works. Religion requires, not mental discipline, but mental submission. All it takes is a process of mental kenosis, self-emptying, and then you can lord it over and exclude others, because you belong to the truth. Forget knowing. There’s nothing to know. But there’s lots of warm and fuzzies, so long as you belong to the right truth. In religion humility is the way to self-assertion, and all it takes is a few words of surrender, and then you can become one with the All!

Consider the Clergy Letter Project. Is this really as harmless as all that? Just sign your name to a letter, and you’re in the club. It’s just like any other religious submission. You don’t need to do a thing, really. God does it all for you. Just by signing your name you think you have made something real!

so the ‘timeless truths’ are not actually true, but the dogma is based on the ‘timeless truths’ actually being true, but there’s no conflict here? For instance, christianity is absolutely based on a “fall of man” and the consequent need for man’s (& woman’s) redemption, which was provided by human sacrifice of one Jesus H Christ, about 2000 years ago. If this is wrong then christianity is wrong. So therefore, I ask, where and when did this alleged fall take place if not in the garden of eden as described (variously) in genesis 1 & 2. Now you tell me this is just a beautiful story that is not true but the ‘timeless truth’ of it is valid none the less? and people believe this stuff anyway?

At the risk of being called all sorts of “New atheist” names again, no it isn’t, and the claim is unworthy. It’s unworthy because it’s a snotty unargued would-be gotcha. I really don’t think the fable of Noah tells us any timeless truths, I think it tells us some unpleasant lies. I said why. You didn’t even bother saying why you think otherwise. You could have at least made the attempt, rather than just dropping in to say “Nuh-uh!” and blow a raspberry.